The burden is on you to actually provide evidence, but I suppose that is too much to ask for someone of faith

Obviously you are unprepared to defend your stance.

Again a blanket statement without any facts.

I have seen the charges against these Christian leaders in the past as well as the dubious origins. An understanding of history based on the rumor mill is not firm.

Mostly the various Christian and Jewish sects.

The Jews don't even consider that their laws apply to anyone but themselves. I would love to see that view propagate to the rest.

A "belief," by definition, is neither truth nor fact, but it is powerful because it fills a need in the individual. There's something missing in their life: self respect, self esteem, a sense of being an individual. To quote Eric Hoffer: "Those who see their lives as spoiled and wasted crave equality and fraternity more than they do freedom. If they clamor for freedom, it is but freedom to establish equality and uniformity. The passion for equality is partly a passion for anonymity: to be one thread of the many which make up a tunic; one thread not distinguishable from the others. No one can then point us out, measure us against others and expose our inferiority."

In other words, if I am in a mob, no one can point out my individual failure as an individual.

Unless and until a sense of "self" takes primacy, any collective will fill the void.

Nice article.

“He who wants to be a Christian must tear the eyes out of his reason.” Martin Luther

Interesting quote, but IMHO, when Luther made that statement he could have just as easily said “He who wants to be a Catholic must tear the eyes out of his reason.” because “Christian” and “Catholic” in his time and place would have meant the same thing. However, his protest and the protestant movement he gave birth to was an argument that “Christian” and “Catholic” were not the same thing and the two terms needed to be separated. He was an educated man who had read the words of Jesus Christ and effectively was holding a copy of the New Testament in one hand and pointing a finger at the Church rulers with the other and saying “Hey guys, somehow I don’t think what you are doing is what the founder of this outfit had in mind.” The Christianity of Jesus Christ had, over those 1500 years, morphed into something Jesus would never had approved of.

A contemporary example is Americans who are effectively holding up a copy of the Constitution and are pointing a finger at their rulers saying “Hey guys, somehow I don’t think what you are doing is what the founders of this outfit had in mind.” It’s had 200 years of morphing.

Now, “Christianity” or rather “Christendom” as I’d prefer because I contend there is or should be a difference in the definitions of those terms, has been rediscovering its roots over the 500 years since Luther’s time and even the Catholic Church is far more “Christian” than it was in those days.

I contend the statement “Christianity and Islam are not that different” is a false statement. Simply compare the teachings of the founders of those respective outfits and the differences would be quite clear to see. I say there was a time in history when Christendom and Islam were very similar, but Christianity and Islam were never similar.

Islam was never about reason, islam is routed in pagan bicameralism, Old Testament Mysticism and never ascended into consciousness due to those mysticism's, their laws and politics.
Many do not get it but the Old Testament was not a religion...it was history.
Christianity was made into a religion and in doing so, surrendered the teachings to the same ole problems of whom have leaded that organization of the teachings. They too were pre-conscious bicamerally mystified.
That's not what Jesus was about. He derailed the religious leaders of Israel. It was not about a church. It was about moral behavior and using a growing connection to the mind to control the very temptations of the bicameral brain.
Did you know he advocated;...hold on to your hats here..."Rational Self Interest"? He spoke to a person on the road that passed right by someone by it's side that needed help and said something to this effect: You should help those fallen by the road side because someday you yourself might find yourself there. That in my mind, is rational self interest...not selflessness, not love but mutuality in your own interest.

Now, islam does need to reform itself and the 109 subversive versus that command one to do harm to another.
However, as I have studied and observed...we should all take an honest "Conscious" look at our history and the Conscious teachings of Jesus and take this whole moral thing, this image of how things have been created to reflect that image to a whole new level...eliminating this whole mystical bicameral speak and instead look to quantum physics and express what we do know and can logically assert at this time and be willing to adapt our understandings of the consequences of how creation was created with profound appreciation.

This has become a sideline to my work on understanding mankind's conscious evolution and how it has effected our evolving paradigm.

Yes, people can be consistently irrational or consistently rational, and everywhere in between. It's the rational part that is important.

excellent article that focuses on what specifically is wrong with vague calls for "change" and what the those calling for change (Obama) have in mind...stay focused on the message and whether the "changer" is being specific or evasive...

Over and over you make this argument with Christianity - you have long lost your credibility.. I do not need to shoot down every argument that Global Warming prophets come up with to know they are spewing BS and the same is true with anti-patent religionists.

Not necessarily - consistency to reality is the ultimate in rational thinking. You have already admitted that you have abdicated this.

You may disagree with the reason, but consistency is the ultimate in rational thinking. Consistency is a result of identification of universal principle. It is inconsistency which demonstrates irrational thinking: inconsistency is the sign of emotionally-fueled decision-making. You may not agree with the conclusions he came up with, but the fact that he came up with them and stuck to them demonstrates significant rational thinking capacity.

I presented history. I demonstrated how you were intentionally misusing the quote by avoiding context. And lastly I demonstrated the absolute fallacy of equation you made between Christianity and Islam. These are statements of fact to which you offered no logical rebuttal whatsoever. Instead, you replied with three logical fallacies: deflection, character assassination, and strawman. Now you've just added that I refuse to "acknowledge history" and that I am irrational. The score is Logical Fallacies: me 0, you -5; Logical Arguments: me 3, you 0.

Now you can easily wipe that -5 off the board simply by apologizing. But to get points on the Logical Arguments board, you're going to actually have to present a real logical argument. You'd score big points by acknowledging that there is no equivalence between the various religions - regardless your opinion of them individually. I'm not arguing their merits or demerits, I'm pointing out that you are allowing your biases to lead you to unjustified and erroneous conclusions. And when these errant conclusions get pointed out, your first reaction is to justify your position by falling back on logical fallacy and accusing the one who points them out as illogical. If only the hypocrisy were not so blatantly obvious you might actually see it.

Islam is a religion cobbled together from Judaism and Christianity. The similarity to Orthodox Judaism. is unmistakable. However, Mohammed included his own brand of barbarity into it and it hasn't changed in practice much since then. It remains a primitive Dark Ages creed meant for an age long passed. It needs to be brought up to date, but its very appeal depends much on its barbarity. As long as Sharia remains the rules of the religion/political system there is no possible way to bring it into the 21st century.

Perhaps you are unaware of the history. I am not going to repeat it, because blarman is well aware of what I am talking about.

First, dbhalling, use periods. It is great to be here and debate rational thought. Your two statements, however, seem more loaded with emotion and anger, than reason. blarman made a good case for the flow of history regarding this. I challenge you to point out the " nonsense" you speak of.

As I recall, Luther was living in the 1500s. This was just the beginning of the Renaissance. It takes time for a seachange in reason...and with the freedom to think, mankind has made great strides since then.
As far as irrationality goes, Luther eschewed "rules" and embraced "principles" instead. That is an epistemological leap for the time and place that he was living in.

It is the anti-thesis of christiantiy also.

Well quit repeating the same nonsense then. It is not a character assignation it is a statement of fact based on your repeated refusal to acknowledge history or facts as soon as your beloved christianity comes up I am just pointing out your irrationalism.